5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.
6.  The applicant completed five years of secondary school. In 1992 he was convicted of murder and theft. In 2000 he was released.
7.  On 5 February 2004 the Hlobyne District Prosecutor’s Office, the Poltava Region (“the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office”), opened an investigation in connection with the murder of R., an elderly single woman who was found suffocated in her house in the village of Gradyzk with her hands and legs tied up. A forensic medical expert noted the injuries on R.’s corpse, including broken ribs.
8.  On the same date, the Svitlovodsk Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office, the Kirovograd Region (“the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office”), opened an investigation in connection with the murder of Ya., another elderly single woman. Ya. was found dead in her house in the village of Pavlivka with her hands and legs tied up. The forensic medical expert concluded that Ya. had died due to a pneumothorax which had been caused by serious injuries, including numerous broken ribs and a fracture of the chest.
9.  On 20 May 2004 the investigation in connection with the murder of R. was suspended, as no suspects could be identified.
10.  On 29 May 2004 an investigator from the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office arrested B., a woman who was living with the applicant, on suspicion of having murdered Ya. After B. had her rights explained to her, she asked to be provided with a lawyer. A legal-aid lawyer was admitted to the proceedings the same day and assisted B. during the first questioning session. When questioned, B. confessed that she and the applicant had visited an elderly woman and that the applicant had beaten up and tied up that woman, after which he had searched the house for money. B insisted that the applicant had forced her to go with him on that day and that she had been afraid of refusing to follow his orders.
11.  On 31 May 2004 the investigator from the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office arrested the applicant on suspicion of having murdered Ya. He was provided with a legal-aid lawyer, H., that same day.
12.  According to the applicant, following his arrest, he was beaten up by the police with the purpose of making him confess to the crime.
13.  On 1 June 2004 the applicant was questioned for the first time on account of Ya.’s murder. Assisted by his lawyer, the applicant stated that B. had pushed the elderly woman to the floor and had tied her up while he had been looking for money.
14.  On the same date, B. and her lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime committed in respect of Ya. in the village of Pavlivka. B. showed those present where in the house the applicant had beaten and tied up Ya.
15.  On 3 and 8 June 2004 the Svitlovodsk District Court, the Poltava Region, ordered, respectively, that the applicant and B. be held in custody.
16.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant was charged with the murder of Ya. He was further questioned in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant admitted that he and B. had visited Ya. but denied that he had inflicted any injuries on the victim.
17.  On 14 June 2004 the applicant and his lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime committed in respect of Ya. in the village of Pavlivka. Upon arriving at the village, the applicant failed to identify the house where the elderly woman had lived, claiming that he could not remember which house it was.
18.  On 24 August 2004 the applicant was allegedly beaten up with the purpose of extracting a confession.
19.  On 31 August 2004 an investigator from the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office received operative information from police officers that the applicant and B. could have murdered R. He resumed the investigation in respect of R.’s murder and decided to question the applicant.
20.  On the same date and in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant denied any involvement in the murder of R. and refused to answer any questions. He demanded that another lawyer be appointed to represent him.
21.  Following that questioning, the applicant and B. were escorted to the Hlobyne Temporary Detention Centre pending further investigation.
22.  On 2 September 2004 the investigator from the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office appraised B. of her rights. B. stated that she wished to be assisted by another legal-aid lawyer from then on.
23.  On 3 September 2004 the investigator from the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office questioned B. in the presence of a new legal-aid lawyer. B. stated that, before the incident with Ya., the applicant had forced her to visit R., another elderly woman. The applicant had beaten up, tied up, and suffocated R. and had taken money and jewellery. B. repeated these statements during a reconstruction of the crime. This investigatory action was carried out in the presence of her lawyer.
24.  On 6 September 2004 the criminal proceedings concerning the two murders were consolidated into one criminal case.
25.  On 9 September 2004 the applicant was provided with another legal-aid lawyer, V.M. When questioned on the same date in the presence of the lawyer, the applicant claimed that B. had killed R.
26.  On 29 September 2004 the investigator granted the applicant’s request to have a new legal-aid lawyer appointed and appointed D., a lawyer with twenty years of experience, to act as the applicant’s defence counsel.
27.  On 4 November 2004 the investigator from the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office started an investigation in respect of the attempted murder and robbery of M.M., another elderly woman. The investigator found that on 25 January 2004 the applicant and B. had entered M.M.’s home, pushed her to the floor and started to beat her. They had tied up her hands and had covered her with a mattress and other things, had taken money and had left, assuming that M.M. had died. However, after a while M.M. had come around and had called neighbours for help. This criminal case was joined to the consolidated proceedings against the applicant and B.
28.  In November 2004 the investigation was completed and the case file was referred to the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (“the first-instance court”) for trial.
29.  On 6 January 2005 the first-instance court committed the applicant and B. for trial.
30.  On 3 February 2005 the first-instance court adjourned the trial, as the defendants’ lawyers failed to appear. The court ordered that the regional bar association provide the defendants with legal‑aid lawyers.
31.  On 14 February 2005 the first-instance court again adjourned the trial, as the applicant’s lawyer did not appear.
32.  On 17 February 2005 the first-instance court resumed the trial in the presence of the applicant’s and B.’s lawyers.
33.  During the trial the applicant and B. each stated that the other had been the perpetrator of the murders, both trying to reduce their own role in the events. The applicant admitted tying up M. and R. with a rope and beating R. He occasionally denied B.’s statements that he had tied up Ya. At one of the court hearings M.M. identified both defendants as those who had attacked and robbed her. The defence lawyers attended the hearings and put questions to the defendants, victims and witnesses.
34.  On 21 November 2005 the first-instance court found that the applicant and B. had committed the aggravated murders of Ya. and R., the attempted murder of M.M., and the robberies of those victims. It also found B. guilty of theft. It sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment and B. to fifteen years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all of the defendants’ property. The first-instance court based its judgment on expert opinions and documentary, oral, and material evidence, including the self-incriminating statements given by B. and the applicant during the pre-trial investigation and the trial. In its judgment, the first-instance court also noted that the applicant suffered from a slight learning disability, which, however, had not affected his mental capacity to be aware of his actions and control them when committing the crimes.
35.  On 19 December 2005 the applicant appealed in cassation, claiming that the first-instance court had misinterpreted the facts, had not questioned all the witnesses and had disregarded violations of his defence rights. B. did not appeal in cassation.
36.  On 14 February 2006 the applicant supplemented his cassation appeal, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment at the investigation stage. He complained that he no longer had legal representation, which had made it difficult for him to prepare his cassation appeal properly.
37.  On 16 March 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated, noting that the findings of the first-instance court were well-founded and properly corroborated by the evidence, including the defendants’ self-incriminating statements; no procedural violations had been found in the case. The Supreme Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer.
38.  On 11 September 2006 the applicant complained to the General Prosecutor’s Office, claiming, in particular, that after his arrest he had been beaten up and tortured by police officers during the following ten days with the purpose of making him confess to a crime which he had not committed; and that in August 2004 he had been beaten up again with the same purpose. By a letter of 9 November 2006 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that his complaint was unsubstantiated.